• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 정품확인 순위 (Maps.Google.com.Sl) such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 환수율 Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.